daddia Check Span and Layers
When to use
Diagnose span of control and layer count — both over-management (narrow spans, excess layers) and under-management (wide spans where coaching needed).
What this skill does not do
- Does not redesign decision rights — route to
/operating-model:design-decision-rights. - Does not assess strategic structure fit — route to
/operating-model:diagnose-structure-fit. - Does not recommend blanket flattening — changes tied to role-type reasoning.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Span by function/level | Ask user for org data or HRIS export |
| Layer count top to frontline | Ask; estimate with [review] if partial |
| Practice profile targets | Use industry norms; flag [PROVISIONAL] |
Provisional mode
Partial org data: assess available spans/layers; flag incomplete coverage in output header.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
structured-aggregation):- High: Spans assessed by role type; layers justified or flagged; latency estimated.
- Medium: Some functions missing; recommendations qualified.
- Low: No span data — halt.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Recommendations are draft for exec/HR review.
- Client confidentiality: Headcount data sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: Flags tied to role types, not generic "reduce layers."
- Analytical Rigor: Every function/level in scope assessed.
- Incentive Gaming: N/A for this shape.
- Escalation triggers: Layer count with no complexity justification — flag decision latency cost.
Workflow
- Read practice profile for span/layer data and targets.
- Assess span by function/level against role type (coaching vs. independent work).
- Count layers top to frontline; justify by complexity or flag accumulation.
- Estimate practical cost of excess layers — decision latency, distortion.
- Recommend specific changes with role-type rationale.
- Completeness check before output.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
SPAN ANALYSIS:
[Function/Level] — Span: [N] — Role type: [...] — Assessment: [defensible / flag — too narrow / too wide]
LAYER ANALYSIS: [N] layers, top to frontline
Justified by: [complexity] or [no clear justification — flag]
Estimated decision latency: [rough approvals for typical decision]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES: [specific layers/spans, with role-type rationale]
Worked example
Input: Engineering managers span 4 on mostly independent IC work; 7 layers to frontline in single-product company.
Expected output (excerpt):
SPAN ANALYSIS:
Engineering Manager — Span: 4 — Role type: independent ICs — Assessment: flag — too narrow
LAYER ANALYSIS: 7 layers — Justified by: no clear justification found — flag
RECOMMENDED CHANGES: Widen EM spans to 8–10; remove one coordination layer between VP and directors [review]
Quality checks before delivering
- Span assessed against role type, not single universal number
- Layers justified or flagged
- Latency/distortion estimated when layers excess
- Recommendations specific, not blanket flattening
- Coverage gaps noted if data incomplete
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/operating-model/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /operating-model:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: exec/HR review, diagnose-structure-fit, or org design workshop.